raid_play

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool returns immediately and warns against inventing moves, but it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or irreversibility of submitting the move.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured, using two sentences to convey purpose, usage order, and follow-up. Every clause adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description provides adequate context for the tool's role in the turn-based flow, including the prerequisite call and the next step. Since an output schema exists, not detailing the return value is acceptable, but some mention of error conditions or confirmation would make it fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter 'move' has 0% schema description coverage. The tool description adds some meaning by clarifying it should be the human's chosen move for the current turn, but it does not explain the expected format, valid values, or examples, leaving ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('your human's chosen move for the CURRENT pending turn'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool raid_say by focusing on submitting a move rather than general chat.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call raid_wait_turn first, show the pending move to the human, obtain their actual choice, and never invent a move. It also explains the follow-up behavior by instructing to call raid_wait_turn again for the next turn.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.